Talk:Woot-Off Checkers
Page format Try and retain the format which already exists. linkname - short desc (version) * the linkname should just be the tld w/ no subdomain * the short desc should be about 60characters or less. * (version) optional. Version key: * BM - Beermovies * YB - yellowBkpk AJAX * DS - Darkstar AJAX * BE - black2d/ekius (typically uses lilwoot page from woot.com uncached) * SG - sgartner AJAX * MA - mraustin AJAX (2.1 rev 2) * LW - Uses lilwoot page from woot.com, typically not cached by hosting server * IK - ikishk AJAX frontend, perl backend. * O - Other/not defined please no shamless plugs. just the facts, jack --ikishk 05:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Also add links to the bottom of the relevant sections. This makes it easier to determine which sites really are stable. Report new sites here If you dont want to edit the main page, report new sites here and an admin will take care of it for you. * woot.us moved up * teamstortz moved up Report not longer stable, dead, or buggy sites here If you dont want to edit the main page, report unstable, dead, or buggy sites here and an admin will take care of it for you. General "Status" process/guidelines How long before you would consider a checker stable? Just wondering since I haven't touched the stable ones unless they were down. If a stable woot-checker was down I would move it to the Regular woot checker section. -- Darkstar 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :if its down, move to the down section. not stable anymore then eh? i move stuff up to stable when i can consistanly hit it and its quick--ikishk 15:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC) ::can I request my checker (thebreretons.com) be moved back to the 'stable' section? It was up there before, but I demoted it when my ISP brought my site down -- they actually thought my site was under attack from the amount of hits it was getting during the last wootoff. I have since spoken with them, and I trust things are resolved. Thanks. MontagFTB 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) What about moving them down? For example, bagsofcrap died for me more then twice this woot-off, yet right now it's on top. --woot user obob, 31jan07 : notice the "Report dead or buggy sites here" section below. Ill move them off the stable. thanks.--ikishk 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Is their a code of conduct of sorts on here like on wikipedia where people that have a vested interest of sorts shouldn't be updating the list of checkers? Asking because I'm wonder if I, as a woot cache operator, should update the listing if there are dead sites and such. Or should I just make notes here and let someone else do the updating on the actual page? I could see anyone being allowed to add their site or move it from "site down" to the active list once they correct issues. This is more should current woot cache operators be allowed to move trackers that down to the 'tracker down' section. --Vrillusions 18:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC) :as long as you dont self promote yourself where it doesnt fit in with everything else, yer good. The fact you are asking these things shows you are aware of what would happen if you didnt keep such things in mind. Basically, try and keep it on one line, stick w/ the facts, keep it pithy. Only real person that gets close to self promoting himself is DS, skipping the regular section for stable all the time... but most of the time it ends up being stable (not today). I ussually move things up to stable when they've been quick for at least 4 hrs during a wootoff. I try and check all the sites at least every 2 hrs. others check them too. feel free to help --ikishk 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Why did the owner of bagsofcrap.com move his own tracker from the general section to the stable section? I thought this was frowned upon. :So pretend I moved it. I had been considering it anyway considering he had posted stats on woot's forum proving he'd been stable for more than the duration of the woot-off -- Darkstar 05:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Misc Was there ever a consensus on checkers that just load http://www.woot.com/lilwoot.ashx on every page refresh and not caching. Personally, doesn't seem like it's helping woot out a lot, although I guess the download size for lilwoot is a lot less than loading the main page. Seems like it would be better if it was just using a local copy. --Vrillusions 07:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Apache Logs moved to Forum:Apache_logs_w/_checkers Luke's help moved to Forum:Woot_dev_offers_some_guidance shard, check out.... hotlinking woot.com moved to Forum:Woot_dev_offers_some_guidance DS error moved to Forum:DS_error Trackwoot Discussion moved to Forum:Trackwoot_Discussion New Wootoff Checker source I would like to submit my simple woot-off checker written in ASP/Vbscript. It is currently stable and Works both during woot-off as well as during non-wootoff. Temporary URL for code is Removed, see below until I get a better hosting solution for the file. Extra lightweight download ::This is not a woot-checker, it's an auto-refresher. It doesn't cache, meaning it hits woot's site every time the page is refreshed (or auto-refreshed, in this case, using meta tags). It also doesn't meet the current woot-checker guidelines set by woot.com which are that a woot-checker should use the RSS feed, not the main page. This cuts down on processing done by woot and bandwidth used by both woot and the woot-checker server. In short, consider adding a cache and having it pull from the RSS feed located at http://www.woot.com/salerss.aspx. -- Darkstar 04:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Darkstar - Could you toss me a link for the woot-checker guidelines? ive searched high and low and cannot stumble across them. Thank you for the tips, and I will resubmit as soon as I rewrite for the guidelines put forth by woot! ::http://woot.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:Woot_dev_offers_some_guidance&t=20070308213538 -- Darkstar 13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)